I second YAML just since it is more human-readable. My suggestion would be to add an external dependency but pull all code that uses it into a single module which can be dropped if the library is not found. Yaml is simple enough that we could, starting from the dumb reader/ writer I wrote, provide a complete enough solution without much effort if we really didn't want dependencies. But, libyaml is MIT license and part of fedora and mac ports so I would just go with that.

On Mar 6, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Ben Webb wrote:

> Keren Lasker wrote: >> I would like to add XML support in IMP. >> It seems that Arabica http://www.jezuk.co.uk/cgi-bin/view/arabica >> could be a good alternative - thoughts ? > > I suggested YAML, to match the current code we have for particle IO. > In principle however, we can add any BSD or MIT library as a > dependency for IMP without running into licensing issues (Arabica is > BSD; at least one of the YAML libraries is MIT). I'd just prefer not > to if we can avoid it (at least for the IMP core) since it makes it > more of a hassle to build IMP. (An alternative is to bundle the code > within IMP, but I'd prefer to avoid that too, at least for > everything that isn't just a header-only package, since we than have > to maintain that package - e.g. monitoring for security problems - > and it could potentially conflict with system copies of the same > library.) > > Ben > -- > ben@salilab.org http://salilab.org/~ben/ > "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." > - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle > _______________________________________________ > IMP-dev mailing list > IMP-dev@salilab.org > https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev